This is a great question based on this excellent short
story. I think to answer it we need to remember the context of what is going on here.
Charlie is returning to Paris after a long absence to try and re-claim his daughter from
his sister-in-law and her husband, who have been looking after her. Charlie was formerly
an alcoholic, and they took his daughter in because he had shown himself unable to look
after her. As he returns to Paris, he is constantly thinking about what his life was
like then, during the carefree days of ridiculous opulence and wealth, compared to the
Paris that he visits now: a much grimmer, bleaker place. Therefore one way in which the
past is imposed upon the present is through Charlie's own
memories:
He
remembered thousand-franc notes given to an orchestra for playing a single number,
hundred-franc notes tossed to a doorman for calling a
cab.
Another way in which the
past literally intrudes on the present is when Charlie meets two "sudden ghosts from the
past" in the form of Duncan Schaeffer and Lorraine Quarrles. These former partying
friends act as a literal reminder of Charlie's drinking past, and of course their
appearance ruin his chances of gaining his
daughter.
Finally, the past is brought up by Marion as she
tries to establish whether her brother-in-law has reformed and stopped drinking. She
reveals to us the rather painful memories of what happened between her sister and
Charlie, and we can see her reluctance to believe that he truly has
reformed.
The repeated references to the past seem to
perform the function of constantly questioning or challenging the supposed sobriety of
Charlie. He appears to present himself as a reformed alcoholic, yet at the same time he
has a past that he appears unwilling or even unable to escape, just as there are hints
that his alcoholism is not completely conquered. Charlie, as he returns to Paris,
revists his own personal "Babylon," which is full of ghosts, some of them far more
substantial than Lorrainne and Duncan.
No comments:
Post a Comment